The Funny Side of Religion

Undergod

Ah here, that's not saying "pi = 3". It's giving a description of a more or less circular building, with approximate measurements.

Sam Vimes

Undergod wrote: »

Ah here, that's not saying "pi = 3". It's giving a description of a more or less circular building, with approximate measurements.

It doesn't say more or less circular, it says circular and it doesn't say approximately 30 cubits, it says 30 cubits. Reading it as an old book written by primitive desert dwellers I would accept that part exactly as you did and move on but reading it as the perfect word of god I have higher standards.

Arguing that parts of the bible are approximations is a bad road to go down. Maybe "thou shalt not kill" is only an approximation and you can kill someone if, say, they're a different colour to you.

Maybe Jesus was "more or less" resurrected. Ya know he didn't actually die but he almost did so technically you could argue he resurrected

Turtwig

Undergod wrote: »

Ah here, that's not saying "pi = 3". It's giving a description of a more or less circular building, with approximate measurements.

Diameter : 10.
Radius : 5.
Circumference : 30.

Ergo Pi is 3.

If it said.

Diameter : approximately 10.
Radius : approximately 5.
Circumference : approximately 30.

Maybe you would have a case.

Instead though it mentions a circular sea of radius 5, but the circumference is 30.In reality, it should at least be 31.

Edit : Damn you Mr Vimes, damn you to hell!

Undergod

But that's kinda my point, it doesn't say it's approximate, but it was written by primitive desert nomads, so it can only be approximate.

This really strikes me as odd- the bible is so clearly flawed in so many ways, why deal with this bit?

Sam Vimes

Undergod wrote: »

But that's kinda my point, it doesn't say it's approximate, but it was written by primitive desert nomads, so it can only be approximate.

This really strikes me as odd- the bible is so clearly flawed in so many ways, why deal with this bit?

Because many many religious people outright refuse to acknowledge that the bible is flawed in so many ways. On some issues they can equivocate and "interpret" and basically waffle until an inconsistency appears consistent (see the differences in the story of Judas' death for a good example) but it's pretty hard to equivocate over pi=3.

Turtwig

Yeah, uh guys, Pi day isn't until the 14th of March. So, can I please see some humour now? Serious discussion in the getaway-from-it-all thread, is the equivalent of blasphemy in my eyes. I am now utterly offended.

Flamed Diving

Undergod wrote: »

But that's kinda my point, it doesn't say it's approximate, but it was written by primitive desert nomads, so it can only be approximate.

This really strikes me as odd- the bible is so clearly flawed in so many ways, why deal with this bit?

Why deal with any bit? Why do anything? Whats the point? Guys, when we discuss just one flaw in the bible, why not include a footnote mentioning the hundreds of other flaws?

Anyway, all of the laughable flaws of the "good book" can be found here, including our wonky circle:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Coriolanus

I think everyone is missing the tongue in cheek aspect of the discussion.

5uspect

Nevore wrote: »

I think everyone is missing the tongue in cheek aspect of the discussion.

I like Pi.

PDN

Nevore wrote: »

I think everyone is missing the tongue in cheek aspect of the discussion.

I find this pi argument to be an example of the funny side of atheism. The twisting of logic involved always makes me giggle.

Flamed Diving

PDN wrote: »

The twisting of mathematics logic involved always makes me giggle.

Goduznt Xzst

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This is a response to it that basically amounts to "it's not perfect because men aren't perfect and god used men to express his words so 3 is a good approximation".

Well, I think the point is that Pi, to however many digits, is always going to be an approximation. If asked what Pi is many will say 3.14 and not feel the need to mention "approximately". Saying Pi is 3 is about as accurate as saying Pi is 3.14 as it is neither. In fact we approximate pretty much everything outside of the perfect world of mathematics and in conversation, never feel the need to need to mention this.

"I, approximately, had a cup of coffee, approximately, this morning, along with, approximately, a bowl of cereal, at, approximately, 9am" ... you get the gist

Flamed Diving

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Well, I think the point is that Pi, to however many digits, is always going to be an approximation. If asked what Pi is many will say 3.14 and not feel the need to mention "approximately". Saying Pi is 3 is about as accurate as saying Pi is 3.14 as it is neither. In fact we approximate pretty much everything outside of the perfect world of mathematics and in conversation, never feel the need to need to mention this.

"I, approximately, had a cup of coffee, approximately, this morning, along with, approximately, a bowl of cereal, at, approximately, 9am" ... you get the gist

Ah, now.

Turtwig

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Well, I think the point is that Pi, to however many digits, is always going to be an approximation. If asked what Pi is many will say 3.14 and not feel the need to mention "approximately". Saying Pi is 3 is about as accurate as saying Pi is 3.14 as it is neither. In fact we approximate pretty much everything outside of the perfect world of mathematics and in conversation, never feel the need to need to mention this.

"I, approximately, had a cup of coffee, approximately, this morning, along with, approximately, a bowl of cereal, at, approximately, 9am" ... you get the gist

Ahh, but the error dude. It's all about the error.
For a perfect book, 3 is a largely unprecise approximation...I'm just too lazy to work out the error now. Any takers?

Flamed Diving

1- (3/3.14) = 0.46 or 4.6%

What if satellites were 4.6% off in the angle (16.56 degrees) of their orbits?

Sam Vimes

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Well, I think the point is that Pi, to however many digits, is always going to be an approximation. If asked what Pi is many will say 3.14 and not feel the need to mention "approximately". Saying Pi is 3 is about as accurate as saying Pi is 3.14 as it is neither. In fact we approximate pretty much everything outside of the perfect world of mathematics and in conversation, never feel the need to need to mention this.

Absolutely but the perfect word of god is not a conversation about a cup of coffee. I have no problem whatsoever with the bible having approximations like this but I don't claim it's inerrant
. My standard for calling something inerrant is that it is actually inerrant, not approximately inerrant

Edit: and just think how much more convincing it would be if it had a more accurate value back then before it had been calculated to that accuracy. Using an iron age approximation lends weight to the idea that it was written solely by iron age people with no divine intervention

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

Ahh, but the error dude. It's all about the error.
For a perfect book, 3 is a largely unprecise approximation...I'm just too lazy to work out the error now. Any takers?

It doesn't give 3 as an approximation. It doesn't give any value for pi at all.

Think of it this way. I might be describing the size my living room to someone. I can say, "It's 20 feet by 18 feet. It cost me a fortune to put the solid wood floor in because it's a total area of 370 feet."

Now, there are two ways of interpreting what I just said.

An anally retentive mind might treat my description as a mathematical formula and misrepresent me as believing that 20x18=370. After all, I didn't use the word 'approximate'! :eek:

A reasonable rational person would understand that I am giving a description of my living room, and so like most other human beings giving descriptions I use approximate figures, and I use normal conventions in language.

Btw, my living room is 18 feet and 3 inches by 20 feet and 3 inches (of course that in itself is an approximation - as is every human measurement). I follow standard usage in that I round figures up or down to the nearest unit. Therefore 20.25 and 18.24 are rounded down to 200 and 18. The floor area of 369.5625 feet is, perfectly naturally, rounded up to 370.

The real problem with this whole nonsensical claim (that the Bible gives any value for pi at all) is that it is a strawman that totally misrepresents what Christians believe about the Bible.

Christians, even those who hold to the strictest notions of verbal inspiration or inerrancy, believe that it uses words according to the normal conventions of human language of the time. Therefore it's not an untruth to say that a guy walked 50 miles if he really walked 49.75 miles, or to speak of sunset and sunrise, or to speak of a kettle as boiling (when, strictly speaking, it's the water inside the kettle that boils rather than the kettle itself).

Anyway, have fun with mocking your strawman.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Think of it this way. I might be describing the size my living room to someone. I can say, "It's 20 feet by 18 feet. It cost me a fortune to put the solid wood floor in because it's a total area of 370 feet."

Now, there are two ways of interpreting what I just said.

An anally retentive mind might treat my description as a mathematical formula and misrepresent me as believing that 20x18=370. After all, I didn't use the word 'approximate'! :eek:

A reasonable rational person would understand that I am giving a description of my living room, and so like most other human beings giving descriptions I use approximate figures, and I use normal conventions in language.

But what if you said that your your description of your room was completely inerrant because you were inspired by god while measuring it and that people should give weight to this and other opinions of yours because of this divine inerrancy? When someone claims divine inerrancy I tend to get a bit anal about it, which I don't think is unreasonable

Turtwig

Therefore it's not an untruth to say that a guy walked 50 miles if he really walked 49.75 miles, or to speak of sunset and sunrise, or to speak of a kettle as boiling (when, strictly speaking, it's the water inside the kettle that boils rather than the kettle itself).

It gives the value of the circumference as 30. It should be at least be 31. Counting it out by simple hand palm measurements would give 31 if the author was any bit clued in. Instead they got 30, implying the bible cannot count or they can't perform simple maths. I understand your figure of everday speech argument, but if that's really true then why have apologetics applied ad hoc rationalisation (Rob, Sam, is this the right term?:)) to it?
We're laughing at their woeful attempts to save the bible and make it out to be correct, when it clearly isn't.

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But what if you said that your your description of your room was completely inerrant because you were inspired by god while measuring it and that people should give weight to this and other opinions of yours because of this divine inerrancy? When someone claims divine inerrancy I tend to get a bit anal about it, which I don't think is unreasonable

It is unreasonable when your notion of 'inerrancy' is one not claimed by the Bible itself, not held by any Christian I have ever met.

Absolutely hilarious strawman.

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

It gives the value of the circumference as 30. It should be at least be 31. Counting it out by simple hand palm measurements would give 31 if the author was any bit clued in. Instead they got 30, implying the bible cannot count or they can't perform simple maths.

Are you sure that you aren't the one having difficulty with simple maths?

If the diameter of the thing was 9.7, then it's circumference would be 30.458. This would be entirely consistent with the normal descriptive practice of rounding measurements up or down to the nearest unit.

Flamed Diving

PDN wrote: »

Are you sure that you aren't the one having difficulty with simple maths?

If the diameter of the thing was 9.7, then it's circumference would be 30.458. This would be entirely consistent with the normal descriptive practice of rounding measurements up or down to the nearest unit.

I thought he was referring to the Bible quote.

PDN

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I thought he was referring to the Bible quote.

So was I.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I find this pi argument to be an example of the funny side of atheism. The twisting of logic involved always makes me giggle.

I prefer to think of it as a case of where the bible couldn't get even the very easy stuff right.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

I prefer to think of it as a case of where the bible couldn't get even the very easy stuff right.

Indeed, and I wouldn't expect you to prefer to think anything else.

Flamed Diving

PDN wrote: »

So was I.

He was. So it seems you are resorting to fantasy again.

Amusing.

PDN

Flamed Diving wrote: »

He was. So it seems you are resorting to fantasy again.

Amusing.

What on earth are you talking about? I have pointed out that the measurements in the Biblical quote would be entirely consistent with a historian giving a description and following the practice of rounding stuff to the nearest unit. How does fantasy come into that?

philologos

This pi thing is hilarious :pac:

It means that the Israelites didn't have an accurate measure of pi. It doesn't reflect badly on either the Bible, or God.

The Israelites are far from presented as perfect. Indeed, if one were to put this passage in the proper context, it doesn't even say what pi is exactly, nor is it the passages intention to do so.

liamw

PDN wrote: »

What on earth are you talking about? I have pointed out that the measurements in the Biblical quote would be entirely consistent with a historian giving a description and following the practice of rounding stuff to the nearest unit. How does fantasy come into that?

So where the hell does god come into it then?

philologos

liamw wrote: »

So where the hell does god come into it then?

He doesn't come into whether or not the Israelites had the correct measurement of pi at all surely?